Review study of using Euler angles and Euler parameters in multibody modeling of spatial holonomic and non-holonomic systems
International Journal of Dynamics and Control • 2022
Publication Information
Authors
Qingshun Bai; Mohamed Shehata
Keywords
Multibody system dynamics · Euler angles, Euler parameter · Honolomic constraints · Non-honolomic constraints
Journal
International Journal of Dynamics and Control
Publisher
Springer
Volume
Not Available
Issue
Not Available
Pages
Not Available
publication.type
International
Paper Link
Open Link
Supplementary Materials
Not Available
Abstract
Modelling and simulation has become a general tool in product development of mechanical products. Building mathematical
models of subsystems and components is one of the most important tasks in the analysis, design and optimization of any
mechanical systems. Multibody system serves as a basis for many modern mathematical models of dynamic systems and
has been applied in many areas of science. In the last decade, many algorithms and numerical manipulation tools have been
developed to meet the increasing demands in the modeling and simulation of advanced mechanical systems in the industry.
There are different methods used to define the body orientation in the spatial domain. Among these, Reference Point Coordinate
Formulation with Euler Angles (RPCF-EA) and Reference Point Coordinate Formulation with Euler Parameters (RPCF-EP)
are the most common ones. The main difference between them is that (RPCF-EA) defines the body orientation by using three
successive angles, while (RPCF-EP) defines the same orientation using four parameters. In this paper, the formulation change
of the equations of motion and the mapping of generalized forces into cartesian perspective are presented. In addition, three
numerical examples are used to discuss the differences between using RPCF-EA and RPCF-EP in multibody systems with
respect to the type of application. The first example demonstrates the suitability of each coordinates to model those systems
subjected to a combination of holonomic and non-holonomic constraints. Second example, illustrates the differences between
the two methods when modeling the types of joints that constraints the rotational motion, or make the relative rotation very
small. Final example discusses the effectiveness of implementing RPCF-EA and RPCF-EP onto systems with gyroscopic
motion, which has some numerical integration problems due to gimbal lock.
models of subsystems and components is one of the most important tasks in the analysis, design and optimization of any
mechanical systems. Multibody system serves as a basis for many modern mathematical models of dynamic systems and
has been applied in many areas of science. In the last decade, many algorithms and numerical manipulation tools have been
developed to meet the increasing demands in the modeling and simulation of advanced mechanical systems in the industry.
There are different methods used to define the body orientation in the spatial domain. Among these, Reference Point Coordinate
Formulation with Euler Angles (RPCF-EA) and Reference Point Coordinate Formulation with Euler Parameters (RPCF-EP)
are the most common ones. The main difference between them is that (RPCF-EA) defines the body orientation by using three
successive angles, while (RPCF-EP) defines the same orientation using four parameters. In this paper, the formulation change
of the equations of motion and the mapping of generalized forces into cartesian perspective are presented. In addition, three
numerical examples are used to discuss the differences between using RPCF-EA and RPCF-EP in multibody systems with
respect to the type of application. The first example demonstrates the suitability of each coordinates to model those systems
subjected to a combination of holonomic and non-holonomic constraints. Second example, illustrates the differences between
the two methods when modeling the types of joints that constraints the rotational motion, or make the relative rotation very
small. Final example discusses the effectiveness of implementing RPCF-EA and RPCF-EP onto systems with gyroscopic
motion, which has some numerical integration problems due to gimbal lock.
Staff Members - Benha University